A well worn and used 1675

Posts
437
Likes
347
I agree, great looking watch which clearly has been on a few adventures over the years and has a story to tell.

Hope it brings you many years more of joy!
 
Posts
2,212
Likes
6,890
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, looks like a very nice watch. There is no pretense here, as stated, the dial is not period correct for serial range, but that has been debated ad nauseam in other forums. What I love about this post is the OP clearly enjoys wearing the watch as is and is not obsessed about the details. That’s what this hobby is all about. God forbid if a hand or insert is out of sorts, the world comes to an end.
 
Posts
5,058
Likes
71,531
Great looking example of an honest watch that has lived a life ,& quite refreshing for someone with such a lovely watch to actually enjoy wearing it .
 
Posts
455
Likes
988
Enjoy it as it is, all the parts are original of different dates, and it has the charm of having lived fully
 
Posts
159
Likes
61
Thanks - I think the part of sharing vintage watches that I tire of is the pedants who want everything to be as it left the factory (if anyone ever really knows what actually left the factory). For those that obsess about increasing the value then yes maybe there is mileage in sourcing a part that is generally recognised as "right" for that watch but these are vintage pieces that for the most part have lived a life. That will almost certainly mean being serviced or damaged at some point in the past with some parts replaced. If the manufacturer or an agent has fitted a service part then that is part of the history of that particular watch and to my mind changing anything further down the line to enhance the "originality" of a watch is deceiving. I know that will go against the grain for many collectors but that is my view. My watches are worn - some are more original than others but they are what they are and I will continue to wear them and enjoy them without stressing that one element (that maybe only 1% of people will ever spot) is not period correct.
Somebody had to say this! Thanks a million. With this mindset, this hobby may still feel like a joy.
 
Posts
356
Likes
1,325
[QUOTE=" There is no pretense here, as stated, the dial is not period correct for serial range, but that has been debated ad nauseam in other forums.[/QUOTE]

Without wanting to stray off topic it is now fairly well accepted that the Mk.4 dial was fitted to some watches in the 3.2-3.3M range (which this one fits into) so it's probably just the bezel insert which because of the fading (natural) I would not swap for a period correct one anyway. Thank you all for your kind comments
 
Posts
234
Likes
409
My first love when it comes to Rolex. I love your riveted bracelets



here's mine from '67
 
Posts
455
Likes
988
mine carries some pieces of service, but I love it equally
 
Posts
1,303
Likes
3,088
I totally agree with @obstando about the originality and the inflexibility of some enthusiasts.
I have a 1675 from 1971 in original order except usually it runs a later Oyster bracelet.
I also wear it in other modes, straps bezels. I find the flexibility appealing , for me it is almost three watches in one.
Feel free to let me know which version you prefer.